<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”</div></div>

Strong words. Why would it (further) bankrupt the country?

Because it would cut the federal government revenues in half, even while increasing the taxes most people paid.

A brilliant plan, but not if your goal is to put the economy on sound footing. Brilliant, if your plan is to liquidate the middle class and lower income class.

cushioncrawler

10-11-2011, 08:38 PM

ANALYSIS: Cain’s ’999′ Plan Would Cause Largest Deficits Since WWII, While Increasing Taxes For Most Americans
By Pat Garofalo on Oct 5, 2011 at 1:55 pm

2012 GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain — who has seen a recent surge in the polls — has been trumpeting the supposed benefits of his “999″ economic plan, which would implement a 9 percent flat-tax on personal income and corporate income, along with a 9 percent national sales tax, while scrapping the rest of the tax code (including all of the deductions and all of the taxes on investment income such as capital gains).

Cain claims that his plan would not be “regressive on the poor,” but economists disagree due to the imposition of a national sales tax that would wallop the poor significantly harder than the rich. Cain also claims the plan will be revenue-neutral, in that it would raise as much revenue as the current tax code. I had Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden run the numbers on Cain’s plan, and it turns out that it wouldn’t be deficit-neutral — not even close (all calculations are based on 2007 tax data, the last year before the Great Recession):

– For the income tax portion: In 2007, total Adjusted Gross Income on all income tax returns was $8.7 trillion. Since Cain’s plan would exempt investment income, but would have no other deductions, that brings taxable income down to $7.4 trillion. A flat 9 percent tax would therefore have yielded about $665 billion in income tax revenue.

– For the corporate tax portion: In 2007, there was a total of $1.3 trillion in reported corporate income subject to tax. A flat 9 percent would have yielded $112 billion in revenue.

– For the sales tax portion: I used generally accepted estimates of the revenue generated from a value-added-tax (see here and here, for example). Those estimates suggest that a broad-based 5 percent tax on goods and services would generate about 2 percent of GDP in revenue. That implies that a 9 percent tax in 2007 would have generated about $500 billion.

– Together, then, the 9-9-9 plan would have generated a bit less than $1.3 trillion in total federal tax revenue. That may sound like a lot, but it’s only 9.2 percent of GDP. In 2007, we actually collected 18.5 percent of GDP in tax revenue. In other words, the 9-9-9 plan would cut federal revenue in half!

“Even if we reduced federal spending to the ‘historical average’ (when the population was younger and health care cost much less) it would still leave us with deficits over 11 percent of GDP (bigger than any deficit since WWII, including the deficits of the past three years),” Linden noted.

Linden also found that someone in the bottom quintile of earners — who currently pays about 2 percent of his or her income in federal taxes — would pay about 18 percent under Cain’s plan (9 percent on every dollar they make, plus 9 percent on every dollar they spent, which would likely be close to all of them). A middle-class individual would see his or her taxes go from about 14 percent to about 18 percent. But someone in the richest one percent of Americans would see his or her tax rate fall from about 28 percent to about 11 percent.

So Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”

Qtec

10-12-2011, 01:21 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A brilliant plan, but not if your goal is to put the economy on sound footing. Brilliant, if your plan is to liquidate the middle class and lower income class. </div></div>

That is the plan. Pretty soon the elite will own most of the country and the people.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So Cain’s plan — which has earned accolades from the likes of supply-side guru Art Laffer — would explode the deficit, while increasing taxes on the poor to pay for a giant tax cut for the rich. As Center for American Progress Vice President for Economic Policy Michael Ettlinger put it, the plan “would be the biggest tax shift from the wealthy to the middle-class in the history of taxation, ever, anywhere, and it would bankrupt the country.”</div></div>

Strong words. Why would it (further) bankrupt the country?

Because it would cut the federal government revenues in half, even while increasing the taxes most people paid.

A brilliant plan, but not if your goal is to put the economy on sound footing. Brilliant, if your plan is to liquidate the middle class and lower income class. </div></div>

You went from curious to licking the spoon from a moonbat analysis quite quickly.

Be honest ... you never had a desire to learn about the man or his plan.

Soflasnapper

10-12-2011, 07:12 AM

Be honest ... you never had a desire to learn about the man or his plan.

I admit it. I had no particular interest in the details, because I knew it was crap.

Mr. Cain is free to, and should, publish his countering scoring to show how this analysis is all wet.

When will he man up, and show those cards?

eg8r

10-12-2011, 08:52 AM

In your previous post you mentioned that this plan was vague but now you are deeming this disastrous. Do you always swing in the dark?

eg8r

eg8r

10-12-2011, 08:53 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I admit it. I had no particular interest in the details, because I knew it was crap.
</div></div>You admit that you know nothing about it, admit complete ignorance, and then you run around and act like you know what you are talking about. Are gayle's mini me?

eg8r

LWW

10-12-2011, 10:45 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In your previous post you mentioned that this plan was vague but now you are deeming this disastrous. Do you always swing in the dark?

eg8r </div></div>

After he admitted that he had no interest at all in actually learning anything about it.

If the party spoon feeds him that it's crap, he will never ... and I mean <span style='font-size: 14pt'>EVER</span> ... seriously question it.

LWW

10-12-2011, 10:46 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Be honest ... you never had a desire to learn about the man or his plan.

I admit it. I had no particular interest in the details, because I knew it was crap.

Mr. Cain is free to, and should, publish his countering scoring to show how this analysis is all wet.

When will he man up, and show those cards? </div></div>

See ... all you had to do was admit that you always gravitate back to whatever the party puts on the spoon for you.

As I've always said ... keep a leftist talking and they will always eventually confess.

Soflasnapper

10-12-2011, 01:08 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In your previous post you mentioned that this plan was vague but now you are deeming this disastrous. Do you always swing in the dark?

eg8r </div></div>

Right. Please follow this timeline with me.

I heard about the plan in broad outline terms. (Actually, my brother asked me what I thought of the plan, was the first I'd heard of it. About a month ago, I think.) My response was that I was fairly sure it was a joke plan, but that I'd reserve my final opinion for after a better look at it. Even then, I figured there wouldn't be the same revenue generated.

In the meantime, I've read some reaction from other parties, stating that it was fairly vague, and hard to score, but didn't look sound. Also, I'd seen Cain's vague claims about the expertise of his advisors who'd helped him with this, and his refusal to name them.

That's about the time of my first comment on the question here.

Since that time, I came across a far more thorough, if back of the envelope style rough numbers, analysis. This find caused me to firm up my critical position, and take a far harder stand against the plan. Based on this new information.

Ever change a position, or turn from a 'leaning' position to a firm position, based on getting new information, or thinking things through in more detail?

Soflasnapper

10-12-2011, 01:10 PM

See ... all you had to do was admit that you always gravitate back to whatever the party puts on the spoon for you.

As I've always said ... keep a leftist talking and they will always eventually confess.

Which of Cain's critics on the dais last night are leftists, according to you? If they are not leftists, why are THEY criticizing the plan, instead of embracing it?

eg8r

10-12-2011, 02:20 PM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ever change a position, or turn from a 'leaning' position to a firm position, based on getting new information, or thinking things through in more detail? </div></div>Yep.

eg8r

Qtec

10-13-2011, 04:04 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ever change a position, or turn from a 'leaning' position to a firm position, based on getting new information, or thinking things through in more detail? </div></div>Yep.

eg8r </div></div>

Yeah right!!!

When?

Give me one example.

Q

LWW

10-13-2011, 04:17 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which of Cain's critics on the dais last night are leftists, according to you?</div></div>

Capital punishment. This is actually a very recent example but your stupid partisanship gets in the way. The difference between my example and sofla's is that after careful thought I actually changed my beliefs. In sofla's example he kept his same belief but now it was even stronger than before.

Sorry schmuck but yet again you lose.

eg8r

Soflasnapper

10-13-2011, 11:36 AM

Yes, I recalled that change as you had described it here a while back (I doubt it was based on anything here, but anyway...), which is why I asked about it.

It's a less dramatic situation with me in this instance, but similar. I somewhat weakly thought the plan was daft, without much in the way of proof that was the case. Looking into it more, I found the analysis that established that yes, the plan is daft.

That all happened in a day or so, so it might not have been entirely clear that my change in intensity or conviction that it was daft was based on this confirming evidence I found (or based on anything). But it was.